proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Speedwell]

...also remember that evolution is basically a natural process. so if evolution is true then we basically dont need a designer...

Unless we need a designer to account for the natural process of evolution.

 

[pitabread]

so if i will test about several genes\proteins and check their phylogeny, i will get the same tree by another several genes\proteins? is that your prediction?

I suggest re-reading what you literally just quoted.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm sure you have mountains of critically robust, replicable data for these assertions, and I look forward to your Nobel prize speech. Every single creationist before you has utterly, abysmally failed, but no... clearly, you are something special.

That’s because you choose to ignore those mountains of data.

Asian remains Asian despite all those mutations. African remains African despite all those mutations. Husky remains Husky despite all those mutations. Mastiff remains Mastiff despite all those mutations. Black bears remain black bears despite all those mutations. Cardinals remain Cardinals despite all those mutations. How many of the hundreds of thousands of animals do you need me to list? Every animal that exists as well as every fossil creature that existed.

Mountains of data falsifying your theory, but you can’t even see it, even if it’s right in front of your nose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s because you choose to ignore those mountains of data.

Asian remains Asian despite all those mutations. African remains African despite all those mutations. Husky remains Husky despite all those mutations. Mastiff remains Mastiff despite all those mutations. Black bears remain black bears despite all those mutations. Cardinals remain Cardinals despite all those mutations. How many of the hundreds of thousands of animals do you need me to list? Every animal that exists as well as every fossil creature that existed.

Mountains of data falsifying your theory, but you can’t even see it, even if it’s right in front of your nose.

Nope, if anyone is ignoring evidence that would be you. The claim of a "change of kinds" is a false one brought up by creationists. You are still an ape, you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still a vertebrate, etc, ad so on.

 

[pitabread]

Husky remains Husky despite all those mutations.

So how many "dog" kinds are there? I don't believe you ever did answer that one...

 

[The Times]

Prooving recursive iterations from one species to another must have a scientific mathematical equation to back it up with, that is based on the time linear history of fossil records.

The absense of scientific mathematical equations is evidence of a failed theory. Evolution Theory is a conspiracy theory, much like the flat earth conspiracy theory.

We must therefore reject the Theory based on the absense of scientific maths required to back it up.

 

[Speedwell]

Prooving recursive iterations from one species to another must have a scientific mathematical equation to back it up with, that is based on the time linear history of fossil records.

The absense of scientific mathematical equations is evidence of a failed theory. Evolution Theory is a conspiracy theory, much like the flat earth conspiracy theory.

We must therefore reject the Theory based on the absense of scientific maths required to back it up.

And so, POOF! An entire field of mathematics disappears right before our eyes.

 

[pitabread]

We must therefore reject the Theory based on the absense of scientific maths required to back it up.

You might want to read a textbook on the subject of evolution some time. You'll find there is actually quite a bit of math to be found within the ToE.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Prooving recursive iterations from one species to another must have a scientific mathematical equation to back it up with, that is based on the time linear history of fossil records.

No, for reasons of differences in mutation rate, generation time, and fluctuations in how harsh natural selection is. That is, to mathematically determine how fast a specific lineage will evolve, all of these variables would have to remain constant, and they don't. So, in controlled experiments, one could do this, but not for populations in the wild, since we can't control for the variables. I can, however, mathematically determine approximately how many new mutations will enter the human population in a day, based on the number of people born and the known number of the typical range for new mutations per person born. About 300,000 people were born today, so that makes for approximately 15000000 mutations that entered the world by those people independent of the genomes of their parents. About 5% of mutations are beneficial, so that makes for about 750000 beneficial mutations that entered the human population today. Or, if you want to base it on an E. coli experiment in which 1/150 mutations were benign, that would be 100000 benign mutations. If you make the percentage of benign mutations 1% (a common claim on creationist websites), that'd make it 150000 new benign mutations for humanity today.

The absense of scientific mathematical equations is evidence of a failed theory. Evolution Theory is a conspiracy theory, much like the flat earth conspiracy theory.

There are tons of models that use a combination of mathematical equations to help determine the rate of evolution; the process is too complex for just 1 equation alone to be sufficient for any of the processes, and thus are rarely brought up individually.

We must therefore reject the Theory based on the absense of scientific maths required to back it up.

http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Reinhard.Buerger/Lisbon.pdf

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm curious, is there a definition of "species" anywhere that states that members of closely related but separate species can never interbreed?

Why yes there is, because if they can interbreed, then they are not closely related species, but the same species, merely at the most subspecies. But you’d understand that if you followed the definition and stopped looking for excuses to ignore it.

Why what do you know, what you claim is actually the definition of subspecies, not seperate species. But b ring you ignore the scientific definitions so you can claim anything at any time, it’s not surprising you don’t know what that definition is either.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Tell me, did Arabs, Indians, Indonesians, Turks, Siberians, Chinese and Japanese evolve from a common Asian ancestor by a series of mutations, or they come from the mating of a 'proto-Asian' ancestor with a 'proto-Arab', 'proto-Indian, etc. ancestor? Where did the hypothetical 'proto-Arab', 'proto-Indian', etc. ancestor come from?

No, I expect they came from one stock, just like all 100+ breeds of dogs came from wolves. Not that I expect an evolutionist to correctly be able to deduce from observation how new breeds, races, subspecies, whatever you care to name them on this day come into being....

Instead I expect you to look, yet not see, to hear yet remain deaf..... I expect you to see the over 100 breeds of dogs from one wolf stock and then question how a mere 12 to 15 human races came into existence, not being able to extrapolate empericial observational evidence scientifically.

I mean come on, why do I need mutation when mere interbreeding is the only way you have ever observed it happen? Not that I expect you to accept what is before your eyes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No facts dont drive everyones opinions and human psychology bears this out. In some folks, facts are too painful to acknowledge, so they must manufacture their own personal reality (typically void of facts) to protect their beliefs. In other folks, it is too painful to have to deny facts, and play psychological gymnastics with themselves and they acknowledge facts.

Lastly, if established facts (that can be verified) drove the opinions of all, everyone would agree on most issues. Clearly, this is not the case.

Oh we agree. Which is why most hide from the facts, it will destroy their belief system.

Like believing humans came about from mutation, while ignoring observational evidence of over 100 dog breed from one wolf stock, then claim that couldn’t be the same way 12 to 15 races of humans came about.

 

[The Times]

You might want to read a textbook on the subject of evolution some time. You'll find there is actually quite a bit of math to be found within the ToE.

Scientific math is based on provable patterns across all fossil records. One governing equation should be interconnected between species. There exists no such math.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Where did this wife come from?

Did she survive on Ark II - the one Gilgamesh made?

Was she a separate creation not mentioned in the bible?

At what point in this Odyssey of Gibberish did the mutation in SLC24A5 occur, contributing to the production of lighter (i.e, 'non-African') ? Dark skin ('African') is the wild type, after all (but Noah was not African... nor was Adam. Interesting...)?

Shows you haven’t even read the Bible, or you would know mankind existed in profusion before the flood.

But tell me, where did the Mastiff that mated with the Husky to produce the Chinook come from? Why interbreeding from one wolf stock.

So just what do you find so difficult about a mere 12 to 15 races coming about from interbreeding when you know over 100 have?

I find your continuous refusal to accept scientific fact disturbing.

 

[pitabread]

No, I expect they came from one stock, just like all 100+ breeds of dogs came from wolves.

Woah, woah, woah...

You're telling me that one of these:

Gave birth to one of these?

Not sure what magical fantasy land sort of breeding you believe in, but it's pretty obvious from observing nature that wolves only give birth to other wolves. I've never seen a wolf give birth to the fluffy abomination pictured above.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nope, if anyone is ignoring evidence that would be you. The claim of a "change of kinds" is a false one brought up by creationists. You are still an ape, you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still a vertebrate, etc, ad so on.

You might be an ape, but frankly I’ve never seen an ape evolve into anything at all, have you?

And no, change of Kinds is a false one brought up by evolutionists. I admit Husky remains Husky, Asian remains Asian, black bear remains black bear, and on and on and on for every animal that exists. It’s you that claims species change into other species by mutation, yet the only time you have observed any new variation is when two interbreeed. Mutations never did anything.

 

[pitabread]

I admit Husky remains Husky

Absolutely. Huskies after all were one of the original created Dog Kinds. And after doing some more indepth research into the matter, have deduced that there are at least 13 different individual Dog Kinds from which all of the existing dog breeds originated.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Woah, woah, woah...

You're telling me that one of these:

Gave birth to one of these?

Nope, but through interbreeding that wolf led to that Peakanese. It’s your biologists that claim this....

Not sure what magical fantasy land sort of breeding you believe in, but it's pretty obvious from observing nature that wolves only give birth to other wolves. I've never seen a wolf give birth to the fluffy abomination pictured above.

And yet the very DNA testing you say you follow says precisely that. You just confuse the different breed that led from the wolf to the peakanese as being separate species when you look at different animals in the fossil record.

Your straw man can’t stand, just google where do dogs come from, maybe you might learn something, doubtful, but there is always hope.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Absolutely. Huskies after all were one of the original created Dog Kinds. And after doing some more indepth research into the matter, have deduced that there are at least 13 different individual Dog Kinds from which all of the existing dog breeds originated.

Didn’t do your research to well did you, that’s why you have no citations to back up your claims.

But I do.

The dog, Canis familiaris, is a direct descendent of the gray wolf, Canis lupus: In other words, dogs as we know them are domesticated wolves. Not only their behavior changed; domestic dogs are different in form from wolves, mainly smaller and with shorter muzzles and smaller teeth. Darwin was wrong about dogs.

Darwin was not just wrong about dogs, but everythin......

 

[pitabread]

Nope, but through interbreeding that wolf led to that Peakanese. It’s your biologists that claim this....

Interbreeding with what, other wolves? I've never seen a wolf mating with another wolf give birth to anything but a wolf.

Have you?

And yet the very DNA testing you say you follow says precisely that.

DNA testing shows that they had a common Creator. That's why they have common DNA.

You just confuse the different breed that led from the wolf to the peakanese as being separate species when you look at different animals in the fossil record.

Your straw man can’t stand, just google where do dogs come from, maybe you might learn something, doubtful, but there is always hope.

Show me a wolf mating with another wolf giving birth to a Pekingese. Clearly it's never happened, thus Pekingese is one of the originally created Dog Kinds. A questionable creation perhaps, but who are we to question God?